Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

1. This revision application is directed against an order, dated the 10th July, 1970, passed by the learned Munsif-Magistrate on a petition filed on behalf of the prosecution to adopt commitment procedure in the case which was pending against the petitioners before him. The learned Munsif Magistrate, by the impugned order, has decided to hold commitment inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Although the charges levelled against the petitioners are not exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the learned Munsif-Magistrate has decided to hold commitminquiry in the instant case inasmuch as its counter-case initiated at the instance of petitioner No. 4 against opposite party No. 2 Musafir Singh and others has already been committed to the Court of Session.

2. Opposite Party No. 2 Musafir Singh made a statement on the 22nd December, 1969, at 4.15 p. m., before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Mashrak police-station in the State Dispensary at Mashrak stating, inter alia, as follows :

On the same day, at about 1 or 2 p. m., he, after having harvested his paddy crops, was storing them in his khalihan, when petitioners 1 to 4, along with others, came there and demanded their share and started throwing the paddy bundles, on which Musafir Singh protested. Then they assaulted him and his father with lathi and chhuri. Petitioner No. 1 was armed with a chhuri, petitioner No. 2 was armed with a pachbera and others were armed with lathis. Petitioner No. 3 assaulted him with a lathi on his head. There were assaults on both sides with chhuri and lathis. He also named the witnesses.

3. On the basis of the said statement, a case under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the Police. A copy of the said first information report is annexure "1" to the revision application.

4. It appears that petitioner No. 4 Ramadhar had -also made a statement in the same dispensary on the same day at 3.55 p. m. before the same Assistant Sub-Inspector stating, inter alia, as follows : On the same day, at about 2 p. m., while he was at his khalihan weighing his paddy and his brother, petitioner No. 2 was helping him Rajendar Singh, opposite party No. 2 Musafir Singh, Gopi Singh, Rama Singh and others came there and demanded half share in the paddy, on which he said that the paddy belonged to them and they would not give it. At this, opposite party No. 2 and others started lifting the paddy which was stopped by petitioner No. 4. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 took out a chhuri from his pocket and gave a blow in his stomach. Having received the blow, petitioner No. 4 fell on the ground. Thereafter, Rajendar Singh took out another knife, and gave blows to his brothers, petitioners 1 to 3.

5. On the basis of the said statement a case under Sec.307, read with Sec.324, of the Indian Penal Code was registered. A copy of the said first information report is annexure "2" to the revision application.

6. Both the cases were investigated by the Police, and it appears that a charge-sheet under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323 of the Penal Code was submitted by the Police against opposite party No. 2 and others in the case lodged, by petitioner No. 4. So far as the case lodged by opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners is concerned, the Police in that case submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 325, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the aforesaid two charge-sheets, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate giving rise to Trial No. 693 of 1970 against the petitioners and Trial No. 654 of 1970 against opposite party No. 2 and others. In due course, commitment inquiry was held against opposite party No. 2 and others and, by order, dated the 30th May, 1970, they were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial. A copy of the said commitment order is annexure "3" to the revision application. The case agains